Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Uummon Beeng

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Uummon Beeng's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. @human_murda please quote it. It wasn't clear to me.
  2. Again, you have failed to (and have avoided) defining what you mean by 'nature'. Turtles and humans are not the same species. A thief and a hero are. Creatures of the same species have the same natures, that is in part how species are defined. A rapist and a businessman are not two subspecies of human, they are the exact same species. Rather than comparing a 6 and 7 it's like comparing a 6 and a 6 but one is writen with blue ink and ine with black ink, the two have the same nature. You seem not to understand the meaning of the terms you use. A 'goal' is, by it's definition, a conscious and desired outcome. Without conscious intent no outcome can be a goal. Yes, subconscious character trains can and do lead to outcomes but, these are not goals. So again, no, your initial assertion that the thief's goal is death and/or some form of suffering is false (at least for the vast majority of thieves). That may be the outcome of their actions but, not their desired or intended outcome i.e., their goal. You are warping what you said so as to be "right" rather than true by avoiding concrete definitions and appending 'conscious' to your statements. You are avoiding taking a stance and defending it with an inconsistent argument (still don't get the turtle-human-thief thing). That trait will be harmful in your future pursuits.
  3. @human_murda No, I absolutely disagree. You have made the assumption that all human beings have a rational view of existence and think about actions and consequences with the same foundation in objectivist philosophy that you posses, that isn't true. A thief may believe that they needs to steal to survive (note: in some situations this may be true i.e, in a society where human rights are not protected). This thief may genuinely want to live to a ripe old age--that may be their goal but, through poor (or a complete lack) of reasoning, may decide on the wrong course of action. Their actions may not be consistent with the laws of reality but, it is unture to say 'their goal isn't to survive'. Having a goal doesn't automatically give you the objective guidelines on how to achieve them. That's why philosophers dedicate that their lives to that science and developing a consistent framework. If having a goal was enough to know the correct course of action there would be no need of philosophy (or any school of any kind). Ayn Rand or any Greg off the street could've codified Objectivist philosophy in one weekend. The goal of many people is to live happy and fulfilling lives but, lacking an objective philosophy to guide them they live as spiritualists or naturalists. They want to be happy--that is their goal but, they do not have the knowledge you have and so they take the wrong actions and yes, misery and death are the result. Before you found Objectivist philosophy, did you not have some goals but, go about them in the wrong way? Was it true to say that at that point your goals where to suffer and rush to your death? Your assertion would mean that everyone with a goal has some innate knowledge and cchooses to act against it. It is possible (and likely commonplace) for a thiefs goal to be living a long and happy life but, to then decide that taking the material possessions of others is the way to go about it. I agree that thoseose actions will not lead to the desired goal but, your assertion that the goal of a thief cannot be happiness is false, at least in most cases.
  4. @human_murda In order to continue this discussion, you need to define and stand behind one definition of nature. I understand that you are replying to multiple points within different contexts but, you are shifting between 3 definitions of the word 'nature': (i)nature as one's set of chosen values-- synonymous with character, (ii) nature as the laws that govern all existence (ii) as human nature--the subset of all natural laws that apply specifically to homo sapiens. While these may be interconnected, they are distinct but, you use them interchangeabley and that makes it difficult to have a thorough focussed discussion on it. So as a starting point, please clarify what you mean when you say 'nature'. When I have used nature, I have been refering to 'human' nature i.e., the existential retirements of humans acting in accordance with their identies as the mammal homo sapien not the choices individuals make within that identity i.e., to be or not to be a thief. So murderers, rapists, heros, vegans, and hotdog vendors all have the same 'nature' because they are all the same species of animal.
  5. @human_murda Thank you for your clarification on the source of human rights. You have helped me grasp the edge of a deeper understanding of the principles involved. I will note that you have shifted the frame of reference of the discussion and that has somewhat warped your answer. If you speak of thieves as having their own nature i.e., as a seperate class of creature requiring different actions for their survival, then it would follow that thieves would have their own set of rights. They are humans. As humans they must produce to consume. Any other form of survival is to exist at a sub-human level i.e ., as a parasite a scavenger and/or a predator. All humans have the same nature (nature as in-'the requirements necessary to sustain their existence, not --their self-made character) so the nature of a thing does give a pretty full basis for the rights it should posses. As Ayn Rand said- "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do" ["The Objectivist Ethics", 17, The Virtue of Selfishness]. It is not skipping many steps in logic to say "this is what humans ought to do; these are the rights that let them do so."
  6. First off, thank you for posting such an interesting topic. It got me thinking and I'd like to share my thoughts.I disagree with you, animals are not capable of reason and so do not have rights. Your definition of 'reason' is lacking. There is no doubt that animals are sentient but, sentience is not a synonym for reason. You have butchered the (already somewhat questionable) wiki definition of sentience (I try to use reputable online dictionaries because wikis can warp definitions sometimes). Sentience is not defined as 'subjective reality' it is the capacity to feel or perceive (some aspects of reality). If you did, in fact, use the wiki definition (ill-advised) the very next sentence goes on to say- Reason is the ability to form abstractions and concepts. Animals have automatic knowledge, hardwired automatic responses to stimuli that they cannot choose to go against. If a lion had reason, some could choose to live as scavengers despite being able to hunt injured, weak or old animals. It could choose to hunt old animals nearing the end of their natural lifespan rather than young inexperienced foals. Lions. like any other animal, have no choice but, to follow their compulsions--this does not mean that they cannot learn but, to equate such rudimental thinking to reasoning is like equating Parrots mimicking to humans learning a language. As for animals learning to solve puzzles you would have to link the experiments so that I can verify if these actions qualify as abstraction and concept formation. For the rest of my argument, I'll post D. Moskovitz response to a similar question on Atlas Society
  • Create New...